Following on from my previous thread, and the document I have posted above, you will see how CASA initially pursued a path of using the "Aviation Ruling" and our "Temporary base procedure".
As that line of attack failed, they moved to "audit results from Latrobe Valley" that were proven to be in error. The argument them moved to content of the contracts, then moved to a requirement for signed contracts, and that has now moved on to the content of the contract again, which I am still awaiting CASA direction on.
For this post let me deal with the Temporary locations. The background to this is that for as long as I recall Flying Schools have been able to use a "temporary locations" procedure. I had been in the industry for 25 years.
For those of you in the flight training sector, you will appreciate that this was a standard operating procedure for most flying schools. This facilitated flying schools running operations from a different location than their main base, for short term use. All operations were fully embedded into the Company Exposition (previously referred to as Operations Manual). Some examples would be:
- A school usually operates from a busy airport but has a group of foreign pilots coming for training. Those students are not native English speakers. That Temporary location could be at a less congested base, in order to optimize learning outcomes.
- A Temporary location could be activated as an additional base during periods when the main base is affected by poor weather i.e. Winter.
- Bushfires or other emergency may require a secondary base to be established.
- A Temporary location could be established ton access maintenance facilities, and ensure continuity of training etc. etc.
During the APTA design stage I worked with a CASA team referred to as CMT 2. These personnel were well intentioned, and had a good grasp of APTA and CASA material. The conversation at the time went very similar to;
APTA "
Once we put in an application for a new base to join us, how long do you anticipate it would take CASA to process the application so that we can activate the base"
CASA "
Approximately 6 to 8 weeks, but in the interim you could activate them through a " Temporary locations procedure, while CASA makes their assessment. That will facilitate continuing operations. Besides many of these schools are existing flying schools wanting to operate under APTA, so if they already meet the standard, there is no reason they would not continue to meet the standard, and ideally improve in the future"
APTA; "
Can we do that, would you be satisfied with that?
CASA:
of course, you already have that procedure in your manuals. The Temporary Locations Procedue!
Note: Our original APTA plan was to have the new member base inactive until fully approved by CASA. In many cases this would have involved fully operating flying schools shutting down for a protracted period, while CASA assessed the application. This option that CASA alerted us to was the ideal solution. It also potentially improved safety as it gave CASA the opportunity to base their ongoing approval on inspecting a fully operational APTA base. My expectation was that this CASA inspection would occur shortly after commencing operations. In fact it took many months for CASA to get around to the inspections and approvals. My expectation was that process would take approximately 6 to 8 weeks. The third base to be approved by CASA actually took CASA almost 12 months to assess and approve. It was fortunate that i had opted for the advice that CASA gave me, in adopting the Temporary Locations procedure, or that business would have been lying idle for 12 months.
So in the design stage we adopted the recommended CASA procedure initially which is extracted from CASAs own guidance material and please make note of that fact, as it will become more pertinent later in this post. We placed that into our manuals and adopted that procedure. Under CASAs very own procedure, that we adopted in our manuals they approved bases under that procedure, so I reasonably felt that CASAs own procedure was acceptable. In November 2017, we underwent a Level 1 CASA audit, being the highest level audit, and that audit included the bases and no concerns were raised at all by CASA at that time.
CASA will later go on to claim to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office that they only became aware of APTAs structure in October 2018, shortly before they acted to shut down the entire operation. This is simply a ludicrous assertion that CASA has put forward to the Ombudsman Office. Quite seriously, CASA worked with me to improve the procedure to their full satisfaction, and then they assess that procedure in early 2017. CASA then send that procedure for a Peer Review within CASA. CASA then approve the procedure in April 2017. CASA fully approve bases under it and liaise with those respective business owners and aero clubs as part of that process of approval. CASA recommend the system to aero clubs as they will testify. CASA come back in November 2017 for a Level One Audit with several CASA personnel over a one week period. This includes onsite visits to the bases that CASA have approved. At each of the sites that CASA visit, as part of this audit the same CASA approved Key Personnel i.e. CEO, HOO and Safety Manager turn up at each base. If the CASA Executive Manager is to be believed, CASA is still unaware of APTAs structure and wont be for almost another year. Thats despite meeting CASA personnel at the bases, CASA attending our Head Office and CASA attending our Group Safety and manangement meetings, and CASA coming and delivering group training to our members, and CASA attending our Group training
Then as you are aware and without any prior concern expressed, CASA hit me with that notification suggesting I was in breach by using that procedure, which lead to a meeting in the CASA Office. This issue is fundamental to this entire matter. CASA had advised me to adopt the Temporary Location Procedue. It was not my concept, and i had not considered it. I thought it was a great idea in that it was safe and practicalThis time under a different CMT as CASA had initiated a change of CMT oversighting APTA.
The new Regional Manager made a statement, that he had legal advice that the Temporary locations procedure was not intended for flying schools. That surprised me. We then advised that is the guidance we had received from CASA CMT 2. The FOI demanded "Did you get that in writing'. At this stage it became apparent that the CASA personnel I was dealing with were not familiar with their own guidance material.
I have made multiple requests to CASA over the last 7 months to explain what is the breach, that attracts the restricted date of operations.
How can I possibly have a breach, if CASA offered the procedure, CASA approved it, then approved bases under the procedure, and then audited us on it, and then does not explain the issue to me. I cannot fix something up unless I know what is wrong. The procedure has been around for years
This entire matter appears to me to be somewhat confusing. A couple of interesting side issues. Our first base under the procedure was quoted as a 5 hour task, which we paid CASA the fee for, and in fact it took them almost a year to process. Thankyou CMT for suggesting a well intentioned, compliant, tested procedure, so that particular base didn't have to wait 10 months to be activated.
I have cut and pasted the CASA suggested procedure below, and attached our procedure as it is somewhat larger than, and perhaps more robust than CASAs suggestion.
"Where flying training activities are required to be conducted at an alternate location from the company's main training base, the following matters must be considered:
1. Exposition change management procedures
2. Instructor familiarity with the
a) aerodrome;
b) local operating procedures; and
c) risks associated with operating at that aerodrome.
3. Aerodrome suitability for the task, including:
a) other users of the aerodrome
b) physical dimensions and characteristics, in respect to the types of aircraft proposed to be operated
c) preference for the use of registered or certified aerodromes;
and) if an ALA is to be used, the advice in paragraphs 4B6.7 and 4B6.8 must be considered, in addition to the other considerations listed in this section.
4. The availability of suitable facilities and services such as:
a) flight planning, briefing and crew rest and refreshment areas
b) fuel
c) aircraft parking areas
d) aircraft maintenance services.
e) NOTAM and weather services
f) communication ability with operational headquarters and other relevant agencies such as:- Fire services- Ambulance- Police- Aerodrome owner- Airservices Australia. "
I am confident that the Temporary Locations procedure in the attachment is equal to the best practice in the industry, and anyone considering this matter i.e. The Ombudsmas Office could access the procedure via CASA of any flying school in Australia in order to make a comparative analysis.
But then again, CASA has never put forward any supporting safety case, or indeed any regulation that has been breached. In fact CASA have never had any evidence or attempted to put forward any evidence. to even suggest that they actually had anything to raise any concerns. Embarrassingly for CASA, the truth is that we had industry leading levels of operational control, and they stubbornly refuse to push on and not admit error or embrace opportunity for improvements. As pilots, and those involved in the aviation industry we all know how dangerous those characteristics can be